For most of his opinion, Justice Marshall considers whether the death penalty is needed for the deterrence of the crime of murder and as retribution for that crime. These are the two major lines of argument in the philosophical consideration of the death penalty. How does he conclude that neither supports the continuation of the death penalty?

How does Justice Marshall use appeals to "utilitarianism" in his analysis?

1. Because he concludes that neither deterrence nor retribution can be met only with the death penalty, Justice Marshall then reasons that it is an "excessive" punishment under the 8^th amendment. In what other ways could society's legitimate goals for deterrence or retribution be met, consistently with his concerns?
2. How could you set up a valid study to prove (or disprove) that the threat of the death penalty deters murder? What are the difficulties in setting up such a study?